Ngoc From a Soviet-inspired communism to Chinese socialism with Chinese characteristics
In the late 1940s, the newly established People’s Republic of China (PRC) adopted a Soviet-inspired form of communism led by Mao Zedong that emphasized abolishing private property, total state control of the economy, and international Marxist-Leninist solidarity. However, after Mao’s death in 1976 and Deng Xiaoping’s rise to power, China began transforming its economy and political system away from strict communism toward a model of socialism with Chinese characteristics, prioritizing economic growth and nationalist development over ideology. This represented a radical departure from orthodox Marxism pursued by the former Soviet Union. Over the subsequent decades, China continued experimenting with political and economic reforms while maintaining communist rule by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Private enterprises and foreign investment were encouraged. Market mechanisms were introduced to allocate resources more efficiently within a state-led socialist market system. Private land ownership and a multi-class society re-emerged. Billions were lifted out of poverty as China rose to become the world’s second largest economy. However, the CCP refused political liberalization and continued suppressing dissent. In comparison, the Soviet Union attempted radical reforms too rapidly in the late 1980s without proper testing and adjustment, leading to a collapse of the communist system. Key differences that enabled China’s continued rule by the CCP while the Soviet communist regime dissolved include China’s emphasis on nationalism, meritocracy, order, and incremental but controlled economic reforms tailored to its needs.
Reinterpreting Marxism through a nationalist, Chinese lens
Unlike the Soviet model which strictly followed orthodox Marxist-Leninist doctrine, China incorporated Marxism through a nationalist, Chinese philosophical lens that diverged significantly from Marx’s original revolutionary theories. The CCP selectively adapted Marxist concepts like class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat and common ownership to justify communist rule while pursuing economic growth and social stability above all else. For example, the CCP redefined class struggle as economic cooperation between workers, peasants and the rising Chinese middle class of private entrepreneurs rather than violent confrontation predicted by Marx. The notion of public ownership gradually gave way to a diverse economy with thriving private sectors under state guidance. Confucian values of harmony, order and merit-based governance also influenced CCP policies, prioritizing social cohesion over class warfare. This allowed the CCP to pragmatically modify its ideology based on evolving domestic and global circumstances. In contrast, the Soviet model adhered rigidly to orthodox Marxism-Leninism which constrained reforms, leading to economic stagnation and public discontent in the latter Soviet era. China’s flexible, nationalist adaptation of Marxism proved far more resilient and adaptive to change over the long run.
Private property and wealth accumulation permitted
A key break from orthodox communism was China’s re-introduction of private land ownership and tolerance of wealth accumulation under “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. After initial collectivization, rural land was gradually reallocated to households through the Household Responsibility System from the late 1970s. Private businesses also expanded rapidly in special economic zones. By contrast, the Soviet Union strictly prohibited private ownership of major assets and violently persecuted “bourgeois elements” under Stalin. Wealth disparities were deliberately suppressed and private capital accumulation was condemned as exploitation. Over 90% of Soviet industry remained state-owned even in the late Soviet period. While the CCP continues promoting public ownership of “commanding heights” like energy and telecom sectors, it now permits a large private sector employing over 60% of China’s workforce. This stimulated investment, innovation, job creation and export growth - contributing immensely to China’s economic rise while accommodating social inequalities. Hundreds of billions of dollars in private riches were amassed under the CCP’s watch.
Class collaboration emphasized over class struggle
Unlike Soviet communism which glorified violent class struggle as history’s driving force, Chinese ideology emphasized collaboration between workers, peasants and entrepreneurs to develop the nation’s productive forces. The CCP dropped characterization of capitalists, landlords and rightists as class enemies deserving eradication. Instead, it encouraged cooperation between urban industrial workers, rural farmers and non-state business owners within a market-oriented socialist system. Private business was recognized for generating jobs and tax revenue to fund China’s modernization. Strict labour laws and a highly organized union movement also reduced potential for antagonism between labour and owners seen in capitalist nations. By rejecting Marx’s deterministic forecasts of chronic class warfare, the CCP forged societal consensus for reforms. It has survived decades without experiencing the worker or peasant uprisings that shook many post-Tsarist Soviet governments and toppled the USSR in 1991. China’s emphasis on order, merit and collaboration allowed communist rule to continue despite dramatic marketization.
Incremental, controlled experiment-based reforms
China’s most significant divergence from Soviet orthodoxy was its incremental, experimental approach to transforming the economy while maintaining political control. Rapid, top-down reforms imposed across all Soviet republics helped precipitate the USSR’s disintegration due to unintended consequences.
In contrast, the CCP carefully tested reforms on a small scale through “special economic zones” like Shenzhen before province-wide expansion. Policies were frequently monitored, evaluated and tweaked to optimize outcomes while engaging diverse stakeholders for feedback. For example, agricultural and price liberalization began in select villages to identify issues prior to nationwide scale-up.
This evidence-based, slow-and-steady methodology enabled the CCP to steer reforms toward prosperity and social harmony rather than crisis. Contingency plans could be executed if destabilizing impacts emerged. Gradual exposure also eased ideological resistance compared to the shock therapy applied in post-Soviet Russia. China’s living example demonstrated communism could successfully modernize through steady, controlled evolution of its system rather than sudden dismantling.
Tight political control maintained despite marketization
While permitting vast private enterprise, wealth accumulation and foreign capital underpinned China’s export-driven growth, the CCP has retained tight control over all political levers. It refuses political liberalization or multi-party democracy advocated in the West due to fears of instability and loss of power. The Soviet Union fatally lost control after launching glasnost and perestroika in the late 1980s. In contrast, the CCP asserts dominance over policymaking, the judiciary, military, internet censorship and ideological indoctrination even as China’s private sector boom created a professional middle class demanding greater say. It swiftly crushes any organized dissent like the Tiananmen protests that could coalesce into an existential challenge to one-party rule. Marketization does not necessarily undermine communist political control, as proven over decades of CCP resilience against predictions of inevitable democratization.
Legacy of nationalism trumps legacy of internationalism
Whereas the Soviet global mission centered upon spreading international communist revolution, China’s foreign policy orientation shifted firmly toward safeguarding its national sovereignty and interests on the global stage. It cooperates pragmatically according to circumstances rather than any ideological imperative. The CCP reversed Mao’s radical calls to incite global socialist uprisings against “imperialism”, instead promoting multilateral cooperation through institutions like the UN, BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization that bolster China’s global standing. It focuses aid towards economic statecraft that advances diplomatic and commercial ties rather than propping rebel groups. This nationalist focus on developing China into a great power untethered from any revolutionary fervour has proven a wiser strategy for enduring communist rule.
In summary
In conclusion, China escaped communism’s fate in other one-party states by deftly reinterpreting Marxist doctrine through a pragmatic, nationalist lens and prioritizing stability over ideology during reform. Its controlled, evidence-based transformation maintained political control while rapidly raising living standards - in stark contrast to the disastrous top-down experimentation in the former Soviet bloc. This enabled uninterrupted rule by the CCP despite abandoning strict collectivization and permitting large-scale private enterprise under “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. China demonstrates Marxist systems need not inevitably collapse if ideologies evolve flexibly to suit emergent realities.
Top Places for Young Chinese Tourists to Visit